Re: inet/cidr type comparisons

Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> writes:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While there may not be a user-visible function for next-network-part,
>> that hardly matters since the special-indexqual stuff isn't user-visible
>> either.

> Well, since I'm making an indexqual clause, I do need a valid pg_proc id
> there. 

No, you need a constant there.

> It can't be resolved during the planning (directfunctioncall) because I do
> want queries of a << b (b isn't a constant) to be also using the same
> mechanism. (so far it looks like special_index_* can cope with that OK)

You're mistaken ... that's not supported currently.
        regards, tom lane